HomeMy WebLinkAboutpcm_05232012 1 UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION
2 May 23, 2012
3 Minutes
4
5 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
6 Judy Pruden, Chair Jason Brenner
7 Kevin Doble Mike Whetzel
8 Linda Sanders
9
10 STAFF PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT
11 Charley Stump, Planning Director Listed below, Respectively
12 Jennifer Faso, Associate Planner
13 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
14
15 1. CALL TO ORDER
16 The regular meeting of the City of Ukiah Planning Commission was called to order by
17 Chair Pruden at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue,
18 Ukiah, California.
19
20 2. ROLL CALL
21
22 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Everyone cited.
23
24 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — The minutes from the April 11, 2012 are included for review and
25 approval.
26
27 Commissioner Sanders made the following correction:
28
29 Page 11, line 32, typographical error, correct to read, `general plan.'
30
31 M/S Sanders/Doble to approve April 11, 2012 minutes, as amended. Motion carried (3-0) with
32 Commissioners Brenner and Whetzel absent.
33
34 5. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
35
36 6. APPEAL PROCESS-There are no appealable items on this agenda.
37
38 7. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION
39
40 8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE
41
42 9. NEW BUSINESS
43 9A. 528 North State Street Mixed Use Development Pre-Application Review File NO. 12-09-
44 PRE-PC: Conduct a pre-application review of a mixed-use project at 528 North State Street, APN
45 002-146-11. The project would include seven one bedroom apartments, five single-room
46 occupancy units, 509 square feet of commercial space and, 12 parking spaces.
47
48 Associate Planner Faso gave a staff report:
49 • The Planning Commission is being asked to review and comment on preliminary plans for a
50 mixed use project consisting of seven one bedroom apartments, five single room occupancy
51 (SRO) units and commercial space for two office suites, storage and laundry space,
52 hardscape/paving and landscaping.
53 • No action will be taken on this project tonight.
54 • The proposed site is located on the west side of North State Street. Norton Street terminates at
55 the project site creating a T-intersection.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION May 23, 2012
Page 1
1 • Memo in the packet points out preliminary project consistency relative to the General Plan,
2 density requirements and applicable zoning regulations.
3 • With regard to uses, commercial and office uses are allowed with no use permit required in the
4 C-1 zoning district. Apartments and mixed residential/commercial uses are permitted with
5 approval of a use permit. The zoning ordinance does not include SRO units as a use and the use
6 is not defined in the UMC. In order to allow the SRO units, the Planning Director is required to
7 make a determination of appropriate use as allowed by City Code. Based on the information
8 provided by the applicant, it appears the findings required for a determination of appropriate use
9 can be made for the SRO units. Accordingly, a use permit would then be required and staff would
10 recommend the SRO units be subject to the requirements included in the draft Downtown Zoning
11 Code (DZC).
12 • Based on the draft DZC, the SRO units would be exempt from the density limitation.
13 • Some of the applicable development standards for the project for the C-1 zoning district and draft
14 DZC related to SRO units are provided in a table of page 2 of the staff report for review.
15 • While the subject property is located outside of the boundaries of the draft DZC, the draft
16 document allows SROs as an allowed use subject to compliance with specific development
17 standards. The applicant as part of their application materials has included a copy of the draft
18 DZC use table and standards for SROs.
19 • One street tree is required to be planted for every 30 feet of project frontage.
20 • The project is located within the boundaries of the Downtown Design District and must be
21 reviewed for consistency with these guidelines.
22 • The City Council will soon be introduced to an ordinance that reestablishes the DRB. The
23 ordinance requires DRB review for all projects that are subject to a site development permit. The
24 proposed project may be subject to review by the DRB should the ordinance be adopted.
25 • In addition to requiring a determination of appropriate use for the SRO units that allows the
26 applicant to apply for a use permit for the SRO units, a Major Use Permit and a Major Site
27 Development Permit are also required.
28 • The project architect is available to answer questions from the Commission.
29
30 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 6:07 p.m.
31
32 Commission comments:
33 • Is pleased to see a mixed-use project.
34 • Bringing commercial and residential uses/options to that part of town is good for the community.
35 • Supports taking advantage of the use of LID features for the project to capture runoff from the
36 hardscape that would occur on the site.
37 • SRO units are essentially referred to as `studio units/apartments' in this community. Studio
38 apartments are found throughout Ukiah. They work well and provide an affordable niche for
39 people.
40 • It appears the studio apartments do not have a kitchen component.
41 • The design for this project is similar to other projects in the community. The corresponding design
42 is a nice fit.
43 • It may be the project would provide for a live/work situation.
44 • The proposed two buildings facing State Street at zero lot line should likely have a decorative
45 component.
46 • The same look for the double doors on the upstairs unit might work for the downstairs unit.
47 • A planter box attached to the upstairs balcony may be a design consideration.
48 • The application of signage would likely work best if there was lettering directly attached to a
49 window. This is a fairly common approach to signage for this type of complex.
50 • Is not sure with the public right-of-ways whether or not awnings are possible for decorative and
51 building enhancement purposes.
52 • There is some concern about the parking with regard to the site constraints and making it all
53 function well, particularly if there is a popular business in the complex. Assumes the downstairs
54 commercial unit will probably be some kind of office/office professional that has little or no
55 pedestrian traffic through it.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION May 23, 2012
Page 2
1 • Consider some design features on the east elevation for the front units to make them a little more
2 attractive.
3 • Does not have a problem with a SRO concept.
4 • Would like to see some trees in front of the project.
5 • It would be up to the property owner as to whether or not to accept `housing entitlement.'
6 • The storage units planned for the project will help buffer noise to the adjacent residential
7 neighborhood on School Street.
8
9 Commission questions:
10 Q1: How does the applicant envision the property functioning?
11 Q2; Is there going to be an on-site managed shelter facility or market rate rental housing or both?
12 Q3. Will the public be able to use the bicycle parking for the commercial units?
13 Q4. There does not appear to be a place for a street tree on the sidewalk. Would it be possible to
14 change the configuration of the driveway to accommodate a street tree?
15 Q5. Is the driveway for the project located directly from Norton Street?
16 Q6. How would the driveway/intersection scenario work? Does a person turning left yield to traffic?
17 Q7. Which direction does the site drain?
18 Q8. Questioned why the plans do not show the east elevation for the commercial units? Will the
19 design features for the commercial units be similar to the other units, i.e., roof pitch etc?
20 Q9. Do the studio units have a kitchen component?
21 Q10. Requested clarification the residential and commercial uses are not connected and that persons
22 would have to use the stairwell to get from one unit to another if he/she lives upstairs.
23 Q11. Requested clarification the units would be market rate?
24 Q12. Were the draft DZC standards/requirements helpful in terms of shaping the project?
25
26 Richard Ruff, Project Architect and Representative and referred to the site plans:
27 A1: The concept was to make this project happen financially for the owner. The only way this could
28 effectively be achieved was to get as many units as is legally possible on the property for lease
29 purposes. The project is not a shelter of any kind. Single entry level single apartments are
30 proposed starting at $475 a month, which is really needed in the Downtown area. These
31 apartments vary in size. When the lot area was divided in accordance with the density
32 requirements, 7.9 units and/or 7 units rounded-down were calculated. This figure did not pencil
33 out so to make the project work financially, the concept of SRO units was proposed for
34 consideration and applied to the project. 200 square feet of common space must be provided for
35 the project and this is being accomplished by way of a garden area in the rear of the lot. The
36 intent is to develop the garden into an `urban garden' to grow food. In the mix of the back building
37 of the seven units there is one SRO unit next to the common area. There are three one bedroom
38 apartments on the first floor and there are four one-bedroom units on the second floor of the rear
39 building that have a sizable loft, which is the equivalent to a bedroom and a half unit. Because of
40 the lot constraints and the tight fit providing for adequate storage space is a problem. The plan is
41 to include 10 storage units to the rear of the property with a laundry facility. For the front two
42 buildings, there is commercial space on the first floor and on the second floor there are two SRO
43 units. These units have covered parking.
44
45 The project must include a recycling plan. The City waste management providers will service the
46 project where the waste/recycling containers will be brought to the street as opposed to a large
47 truck coming into the complex to pick up garage/recycling and risk problems since the site is very
48 tight in terms of space.
49
50 The Management Plan is a work in progress and will be submitted at a later date.
51
52 City fire trucks will be able to make a T-turn on the site.
53
54 There are some existing trees on the west side of the subject property.
55
56 The list of project objectives includes:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION May 23, 2012
Page 3
1 • Rainwater will be harvested/stored to irrigate the urban garden.
2 • The plan is to try and incorporate some vertical `green' walls.
3 • Green building standards will be used in the design of the buildings.
4 • The roofs are designed to receive Sharp PV solar modules.
5 • The units will be electric with PG&E gas for back-up. The solar panels will function as the
6 primary power. Heating and cooling will be with `mini-split systems.'
7 • Tankless waterheaters will be installed in the units.
8 • High-energy saving fans will be used.
9 • Clay pavers will be used.
10 • All the appliances will be energy `star-rated' or better. The intent is to get very close to a
11 net-zero energy building.
12 • Provide for triple glazed windows to make the project as energy efficient as possible and
13 this type of windows will help mitigate noise impacts. The windows will open.
14 • The ground-floor units to the rear will have separate garden areas. The project will meet
15 the 20% landscaping requirement. There are plans for a trellis in this area.
16 • The parking requirements are being met in a way that seven units require seven parking
17 spaces and the SRO units require 2'/2 parking that round to 3 spaces. The commercial
18 spaces require 1 parking space each for a total of 12 parking spaces.
19 • There will be 12 bicycle parking spaces.
20 • A handicap parking space would be located at the entrance to the larger units in the rear
21 of the lot.
22 • There will be handicap access from the sidewalk throughout the project.
23 • One unit on the ground floor will be ADA accessible under the residential use component
24 and located nearest the handicap parking space.
25 • 10 small storage units will be built in the rear.
26 • A common laundry room will be located next to the storage units.
27
28 A3. The public will be able to use the bicycle parking for the commercial units. There will be bicycle
29 parking located beside the utility room on the north building.
30 A4. The proposed layout of the driveway is the best approach in terms of safety precautionary
31 measures. The current proposed configuration presents a traffic calming situation as one
32 approaches the driveway where a person must slow down to make it through the driveway. The
33 intent was to leave the `landing areas in the fronY clear. The applicant is looking for a place on
34 State Street where a street tree can be planted and this may be problematic because of power
35 lines, other utilities and the existing traffic signal. One of the requirements is to treat the issue of
36 access at an intersection with regard to pedestrians and vehicles since the property is essentially
37 located at an intersection where Norton Street terminates at the project site and creates a T-
38 intersection.
39 A5. The entrance to the driveway is located directly across from Norton Street. The intent of Public
40 Works was to get the driveway as close to directly opposite Norton Street.
41 A6. The results from the traffic study being done for the project as to how egress and ingress works
42 for the driveway and intersection have not been received. There will be a signal on the sidewalk
43 to alert people when to stop and go.
44 A7. Runoff generated from the site will drain toward State Street into the City's storm drain system.
45 A8. Plans for this portion of the project have not yet been developed. While the design features for
46 the commercial units have not been fully developed, they will architecturally be compatible with
47 the design of the other units.
48 A9. The SRO units will have a kitchen component.
49 A10. Confirmed the stairwell would have to be used to access the units.
50 A11. The units will be market rate.
51 Al2. Found the draft DZC to be helpful in terms of the setback and density requirements.
52
53 Commissioner poble requested clarification whether the Commission or the Planning Director will make
54 a decision about SRO uses for this project?
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION May 23, 2012
Page 4
1 Planning Director Stump: This project includes a SRO use for this mixed use project in which
2 apartments and mixed residential/commercial uses are allowed with a use permit. The Code is silent with
3 regard to SRO units as a use. Since the Code does not define a SRO use, the Planning Director would be
4 required to make a determination of appropriate use for SRO units as allowed by Code.
5
6 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 6:40 p.m.
7
8 Commission consensus:
9 • Supports the mixed-use project and corresponding SRO unit concept.
10 • Likes the conceptual design with the addition of some suggestions as referenced above.
11 • Likes that the applicant is utilizing the draft DZC as a guide for the development.
12 • Is hopeful the project moves forward from a conceptual design to Planning Commission approval.
13
14 10. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
15 1. Reported on recently approved Zoning Administrator actions concerning the installation of an
16 internally illuminated letter sign reading `World Gym' to the existing World Gym commercial
17 structure, a cargo container project for Ukiah Player's Theater and exterior changes to an existing
18 historical structure located at 108 W. Standley Street.
19 2. Costco has changed their project description so as a result the administrative draft of the EIR had
20 to be revised.
21 3. An ordinance was introduced to City Council at last week's regular meeting to establish a City
22 Design Review Board.
23 4. As required by law, City staff inet with the Mendocino County Airport Land Use Commission to
24 make a determination whether the draft DZC is consistent with the comprehensive land use plan
25 for the Airport. The document was determined to be consistent with the recommended addition of
26 language in the tables saying that `projects had to be consistent with the Comprehensive Airport
27 Land Use Plan.'An initial environmental study for the DZC is being prepared.
28 5. The green house gas emissions inventory project is moving forward in partnership with the City of
29 Fort Bragg and Mendocino County with a County sponsored grant to hire a consultant.
30 6. Sign code enforcement work is being conducted by Planning staff. Business owners are being
31 contacted regarding violations and given information to educate people about what types of signs
32 are acceptable/allowed.
33
34 Chair Pruden asked why an EIR was necessary for the Plastic Bag Ordinance.
35
36 Planning Director Stump: It was necessary because every jurisdiction that has adopted a plastic bag
37 ordinance in the State of California has been sued and CEQA is the first thrust in such a law suit. There
38 was a case that occurred in Southern California where a Negative Declaration was prepared for the
39 ordinance as opposed to an EIR that was challenged and upheld by the courts. To be protected, the City
40 chose the latter approach.
41
42 There was a brief discussion about the progress being made on renovations to the Palace Hotel.
43
44 11. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT
45 Commissioner Sanders provided the Commissioners with a copy of the Master Tree List that was
46 recently adopted by Council as well as some information about the process TAG went through to
47 formulate this valuable document.
48
49 Chair Pruden reported there are four new businesses in the Downtown that are either open or in the
50 process thereof.
51
52 12. ADJOURNMENT
53 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:47 p.m.
54
55 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
56
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION May 23, 2012
Page 5
1
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION May 23, 2012
Page 6